coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Novaya Usman, Voronezh Region.
5.  On 17 or 20 March 1998 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, a municipal enterprise, claiming his reinstatement in the post and damages. On 3 June 1998 the applicant amended his claims and sought to obtain certain documents from the respondent company.
6.  On 8 February 2000 the Chaunskiy District Court of the Chukotka Region dismissed the applicant’s action. On 6 April 2000 the Chukotka Regional Court set aside the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
7.  In May and July 2000 and January 2001 the applicant amended his claims, reiterated his claim for documents from the respondent and asked the court to call witnesses. On 1 February 2001 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. On 24 May 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a re-trial.
8.  In July 2001 and February 2002 the applicant amended his claims. On 22 February 2002 the District Court found for the applicant. The court reinstated him and awarded him 67,960 Russian roubles (RUB) on account of leave payment, RUB 39,766.09 for salary arrears and inflation losses, and RUB 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 16 May 2002 the Regional Court remitted the case for a new examination in the part of leave payment and upheld the remainder of the judgment.
9.  On 30 November 2002 the applicant received RUB 39,766.09 as awarded by the court and another payment of RUB 17,397.14.
10.  On 9 January 2003 the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 48,247 in leave payment. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 20 January 2003.
11.  On 24 January 2003 the bailiffs’ office opened enforcement proceedings. On 21 March 2003 the District Court instructed the bailiffs’ office to collect RUB 30,849.86 from the respondent company because due to a mistake the applicant had already received RUB 17,397.14.
12.  On 5 May 2003 the bailiffs’ office closed the enforcement proceedings. They held that the judgment could not be enforced because the respondent had no property or funds; on 2 July 2002 the enterprise had been restructured so that its assets had been transferred to the municipality.
13.  The judgment of 9 January 2003 was enforced in full on 14 April 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ryazan.
5.  He is a former military serviceman. From 22 August 2000 to 15 October 2001 he served in the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
6.  Upon his return, the applicant brought proceedings against the head of his military unit to secure payment of his daily allowance for his service abroad.
7.  On 25 July 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the military unit to pay the applicant 400,164.75 Russian roubles (RUB) in remuneration and RUB 1,000 in expenses for legal advice.
8.  The military unit did not lodge an ordinary appeal, and on 22 August 2003 the judgment became binding and enforceable.
9.  However, following the respondent’s request, on 19 November 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The reason given for the quashing of the judgment was the “wrongful application of substantive law by the first-instance court”.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and currently lives in Sevastopol, the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, Ukraine.
5.  At the material time she worked at the Housing Maintenance and Utilities Enterprise “Kotelnikovo” (Управління житлово-комунального господарства «Котельниково»), a municipal enterprise set up and owned by local village council. The labour contract with the applicant was signed by that village council. Subsequently she resigned.
6.  On 16 December 2002 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea awarded the applicant 3,151.25 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments due to her by her former employer.
7.  This judgment became final and on 30 January 2003 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it. According to the Government, in the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 357.97 was paid to the applicant. The applicant, in her turn, contested that she had ever been paid any sum under the judgment.
8.  In September 2003 the applicant instituted another set of proceedings against her former employer seeking additional compensation for salary arrears. On 1 February 2005 the court dismissed her claim. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment.
9.  On 15 December 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated for lack of funds of the debtor enterprise. The applicant did not challenge this decision before the domestic courts; nor had she reintroduced her writ of enforcement with the State Bailiffs’ Service.
10.  On 26 January 2006 the Commercial Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea initiated liquidation proceedings against the debtor enterprise. These proceedings were terminated on 26 February 2007 and the enterprise was removed from the relevant enterprises’ register. The applicant did not raise her creditor claims within these proceedings.
11.  The judgment of 16 December 2002 remains unenforced.
12.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Pyatykhatky, the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.
13.  On 11 April and 1 October 2003 the Pyatykhatky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region awarded the applicant UAH 1,705.14 and UAH 570.41[2], respectively, in salary arrears due to her by her former employer, the Pyatykhatky Municipal Plumbing Company (Комунальне підприємство водопровідно-каналізаційного господарства в м. П’ятихатки) set up, owned and managed by local town council.
14.  These judgments became final and on 30 April 2003 and 30 March 2004, respectively, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.
15.  The applicant complained to various State authorities about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour but to no avail.
16.  On 15 May 2007 the awarded amounts were paid to the applicant.
4.  The applicant, Mr Vladimir Petrovich Krasovskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk, Ukraine.
5.  On 28 October 2003 the Dniprovsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk awarded the applicant 2,199 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears and UAH 2,743.29 in other payments, to be paid by the open joint stock company Dniprovsky Mineral Fertilizers Plant (“the debtor”).
6.  On 4 November 2003 the Bagliysky District Bailiffs’ Service of Dniprodzerzhynsk initiated enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 25 October 2004 the debtor paid the applicant UAH 2,199 in salary arrears.
8.  On unspecified date the debtor paid the applicant UAH 106,19.
9.  On 7 April 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.
10.  By a letter of 22 December 2005, the bailiffs notified the applicant that they were unable to collect the full amount of the award, referring to the fact that financial assets of the debtor were insufficient. They further explained that other assets could not be sold, as the State owned 40 % of the debtor’s share capital. The debtor was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.
11.  The judgment remains partly unenforced.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the debtor in the Dniprovsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk claiming payment of UAH 4,775.90.
13.  On 16 December 2004 the court found against the applicant.
14.  On 17 February 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 20 July 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Safonovo, Smolensk Region.
5.  The applicant took part in the clean-up operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result of exposure to radioactive emissions, in 1997 a medical board designated him Category 3 disabled. He was awarded monthly compensation for the damage to his health.
6.  In 2007 the applicant brought proceedings against the local social welfare authority (Департамент Смоленской области по социальному развитию) in order to have his compensation recalculated in line with inflation.
7.  On 9 February 2007 the Safonovo Town Court of the Smolensk Region granted the applicant’s claim and obliged the respondent to pay the applicant 64,526.01 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of monthly compensation for health damage from 1 July 2007 and RUB 1,870,641.16 in respect of arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2006. No appeal was lodged within the statutory time-limit, and on 10 April 2007 the judgment became final and enforceable.
8.  On 15 May 2007 the respondent lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 9 February 2007.
9.  On 1 June 2007 the enforcement proceedings started.
10.  On 30 July 2007 the Presidium of the Smolensk Regional Court re-examined the case and concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. It therefore quashed the judgment of 9 February 2007 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
11.  On 1 November 2007 the applicant’s claim was partly satisfied by the Safonovo Town Court.
12.  The applicant appealed against the judgment and on 18 December 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
13.  Meanwhile the applicant amended his claims and requested the compensation to be adjusted from 3 February 1997. He also raised his claims as regards the monthly payments.
14.  On 19 March 2008 the Safonovo Town Court partly granted the applicant’s claims. The court obliged the respondent to pay the applicant RUB 55,546.16 in respect of monthly compensation for health damage as from 1 July 2007 and RUB 1,689,301.76 in respect of arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2006. It also awarded the applicant RUB 3,000 for legal costs and expenses.
15.  On 6 May 2008 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 19 March 2008, having raised the subsequent amounts to RUB 57,140.31 and RUB 1,763,050.41 respectively.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Altmünster.
6.  Upon his baptism on 30 July 1983 the applicant became a member of the recognised religious community of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Austria, within which he assumed the function of a preacher (Prediger) and, since 6 November 1997, an elder (Ältester) in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ community in Gmunden. This function includes providing pastoral care to the community, leading church services and preaching.
7.  In September 2000 the Upper Austrian Military Authority (Militärkommando) ordered the applicant to undergo examinations as to his ability to perform military service. The applicant appealed against the order, claiming that he should be dispensed from military service since he performed a function within the Jehovah’s Witnesses which was equivalent to that of members of a recognised religious society who were exempt from military service under section 24(3) of the Military Service Act (Wehrgesetz). To restrict such a privilege to members of recognised religious societies was not objectively justified and was therefore in breach of the Federal Constitution.
8.  On 9 October 2000 the Upper Austria Military Authority dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 14 December 2000 the Federal Minister for Defence (Bundesminister für Landesverteidigung) confirmed that decision. Both authorities refused the applicant’s appeals on the ground that he did not belong to a recognised religious society.
9.  Subsequently, on 25 January 2001, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), requesting it to repeal the wording “recognised religious societies” in section 24(3) of the Military Service Act.
10.  On 25 September 2001 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospects of success. It found that the applicant’s obligations under the Military Service Act did not interfere with the internal rules and practices of the religious community at issue. It furthermore referred to earlier decisions dealing with the legal status of religious communities and their difference from recognised religious societies under the Recognition Act.
11.  On 23 May 2003 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that exemption from the obligation to perform military service merely applied to members of recognised religious societies and could not be extended to members of registered religious communities. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 4 July 2003.
12.   On 26 August 2003 the applicant asked the Federal Ministry for Defence to take no action until the European Court of Human Rights had decided on his application. The applicant was informed that an instruction had been issued to the Upper Austrian Military Authority not to call him up until further notice.
10.  The applicant is a civil servant in the Ministry of National Education. At the relevant time she was on secondment to the Bureau for the primary education of Greek children abroad, in the city of Stuttgart. On 2 June 1998 she filed a criminal complaint for perjury and defamation against S.M., with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, but without claiming compensation. S.M., a civil servant in the same Ministry, was the applicant's immediate superior. She alleged in particular that, in connection with an administrative investigation opened against her, S.M. had stated that she did not observe working hours and did not get on well with her colleagues.
11.  On 26 September 2001, when the case was heard before the Athens Criminal Court, the applicant reiterated her civil-party application, claiming 1,000 drachmas (about 3 euros) and adduced her arguments. On the same day, the Athens Criminal Court acquitted S.M. of the charges against him, finding that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. In particular, after examining all the evidence, the court considered that the offending remarks had been truthful and that it had not been the defendant's intention to defame or insult the applicant (judgment no. 74941/2001).
12.  On 5 August 2002 this judgment was finalised and entered in the register of the Criminal Court.
13.  On 24 September 2002 the applicant requested the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to lodge an appeal on points of law against the Athens Criminal Court's judgment no. 74941/2001, under Article 506 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She alleged, in particular, that the judgment did not contain sufficient reasoning.
14.  On 27 September 2002 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation returned the applicant's letter with the following handwritten comment on the actual request: “There are no legal or well-founded grounds of appeal to the Court of Cassation”.
5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest.
6.  From 1973 he lived in an apartment rented from the State in a nationalised building. On 13 January 1997, under Law no. 112/1995 on the legal status of certain residential property, the applicant bought that apartment from the State.
7.  In a final decision of 23 May 1997 the Bucharest District Court allowed an action (acţiunea în revendicare) brought by the former owner against the State for recovery of possession of the building where the applicant’s apartment was situated.
8.  Based on that decision, the former owner lodged several actions for recovery of possession against the persons who had bought apartments in the building in similar conditions, including the applicant.
9.  In a final decision of 28 January 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the applicant to surrender possession of the apartment to the plaintiff. The court found that the former owner’s property title deed, as it had been confirmed by the final decision of 23 May 1997, prevailed over the applicant’s purchase contract. It also considered that the applicant’s bona fides in concluding the 13 January 1997 contract was relevant only in the event that the applicant lodged an action for compensation against the State.
10.  Meanwhile, the same Court of Appeal did take into account the buyers’ good faith in dismissing actions lodged by the former owner against other persons who had bought apartments in the same building. Thus, on 28 November 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed the action against T.I. and T.A., who had bought their apartment on 12 December 1996; on 7 February 2003 it dismissed the action against I.E. and M.S. and on 20 June 2003 it dismissed the action against C.D., who had bought his apartment on 27 March 1997.
11.  On 6 April 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, acting on an application by the Procurator General (recurs în anulare), quashed the final decision of 28 November 2002 and sent the case back to the first‑instance court. According to the information available to the Court, the proceedings are still pending with the domestic courts.
On 9 February 2006 the High Court allowed a similar application by the Procurator General and set aside the 20 June 2003 decision, thereby allowing the former owner’s action against C.D.
A similar action by the Procurator General, lodged against the 7 February 2003 decision mentioned above, was allowed by the High Court on 14 February 2007. The case was sent back to the Bucharest County Court for re-examination of the appeal. The proceedings are still pending with that court.
12.  As to the applicant, eviction proceedings lodged by the former owner against him are currently pending with the domestic courts.
6.  From 1970 he practised as a physician affiliated to the statutory public health insurance scheme.
7.  In 1992 the Health Care Reform Act (Gesundheitsstrukturgesetz) amended the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act, Book V (Sozialgesetzbuch V) and introduced a retirement age of 68 for those medical practitioners who were affiliated to the statutory public health insurance scheme with effect from 1 January 1999 (see “Relevant domestic law” below).
8.  On 11 May 1998 the Hamburg Regional Registration Committee for Physicians (Zulassungausschuss für Ärzte) decided that according to section 95 § 7 of the Social Security Act, Book V (see “Relevant domestic law” below) the applicant’s authorisation to practise as a physician under the statutory public health insurance scheme would expire on 1 January 1999 as the applicant already had reached his 68th birthday prior to that date.
9.  On 27 July 1998 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal against that decision, which the Hamburg Appeals Board for Physicians (Berufungsausschuss) dismissed on 30 September 1998.
10.  On 19 November 1998 the applicant brought an action before the Hamburg Social Court to have the previous decisions annulled without submitting his statement of claim.
11.  On 21 December 1998 the applicant, without awaiting the outcome of the proceedings before the Social Court, lodged a constitutional complaint which the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit on 15 February 1999.
12.  On 21 May 1999 the applicant submitted a statement of claim to the Hamburg Social Court which it forwarded to the defendant on 16 July 1999.
13.  On 21 December 1999 the Social Court forwarded the defendant’s statement of 26 July 1999 to the applicant.
14.  On 18 February 2000 the Social Court forwarded the defendant’s further statements of 18 January 2000 to the applicant and requested him to comment on them which the applicant did on 3 September 2001.
15.  Between 21 September 2001 and 22 May 2002 the case file was erroneously stored in the Social Court’s archives.
16.  On 17 October 2002 the Social Court informed the applicant that it intended to render a decision (Gerichtsbescheid) without holding an oral hearing and invited the applicant to submit written comments within one month. On 15 November 2002 the applicant submitted his comments.
17.  On 20 August 2003 the Hamburg Social Court dismissed his action, referring to the established case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court according to which the introduction of a compulsory retirement age for doctors had been compatible with the Basic Law (Grundgesetz).
19.  On 18 August 1999 the applicant lodged his first application with the Court, alleging that the revocation of his authorisation to practise as a physician under the statutory public health insurance scheme violated his rights under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
20.  On 20 May 2003 the Court declared his application (no. 55004/00) inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Armavir, a town in Armenia.
5.  A warrant officer of the Russian Border Guard Service (“Service”), she serves in a unit stationed in Armenia.
6.  In June 2000 the applicant requested an early discharge because of structural changes in her service. Under domestic law, long-serving personnel in need of better housing (the applicant met these conditions) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When asking for discharge, the applicant specified that she wished to receive the housing.
7.  As no housing was provided, in November 2003 the applicant sued the Director of the Service for provision of housing and an early discharge. On behalf of the defendant the trial was attended by X, a major of military justice acting on the basis of a power of attorney. X accepted the applicant’s claim and on 15 March 2004 the Fifth Garrison Military Court ordered the Director to provide the applicant’s family with housing in Moscow and to discharge her. This judgment became enforceable immediately, but was not enforced.
8.  In July 2004 the Bailiff’s Service investigated the applicant’s allegation that the delayed enforcement constituted an offence under section 315 of the Criminal Code (ignoring judgments), but found that the Director had no case to answer.
9.  On the Director’s request, on 18 January 2005 the Presidium of the North-Caucasian Military Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review and ordered a rehearing. The Presidium justified the quashing with four reasons.
First, the judgment had been based solely on the defendant’s acceptance of the claim and had not explored whether the claim as such had been lawful and compatible with third parties’ interests.
Second, X had not been duly authorised by the defendant proper, i.e. by the Director; he was authorised by the Service’s local branch only.
Third, the acceptance of the claim had not been formally recorded.
Fourth, the Garrison Court had misevaluated facts and material law.
10.  After the rehearing, on 1 June 2006 the Garrison Court ordered the Director to provide the applicant’s family with housing in Moscow by means of a first-priority queue (в первоочередном порядке). The court dismissed the applicant’s claim for discharge because this matter was within the authority of her unit, not that of the Director. This judgment became binding on 25 October 2006.
11.  To enforce the judgment, in November 2006 the logistics department of the Service sent to the applicant’s unit a list of documents necessary for putting her in the queue. In February 2007 the unit provided a part of these documents. In May 2007 the logistics department reminded the applicant that to complete her file she had to provide further documents, among them an extract from the register of tenants, her children’s birth certificates, and proof of entitlement to privileges. In September 2007 the applicant completed the file, and on 2 November 2007 the housing commission of the Service put the applicant’s family in the first-priority housing queue.